Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Discussion Thread

[Knightshade]

I don't buy it. What majority would push this through Congress? This would be a huge generational mistake for either party to make. Only boomers would want to ban this to protect their USD-denominated retirement money.

Who exactly do you think is in congress?

Millennials and Gen-Z would be utterly pissed off at whatever lot of politicians destroyed their crypto wealth. And no one ever cares what Gen-X thinks anyway.

If anybody cared what those folks thought in politics Bernie would've been the nominee. Those folks don't bother to show up to vote though.

 

[jhm]

thank you jhm. that is some BS your broker wouldn't allow you to purchase GBTC as it is trading at quite a discount right now. what are your thoughts on Litecoin? Seems to me like the next natural purchase after BTC.

Litecoin = Dogecoin - "much wow"

Litecoin has good market cap and very good Vol/MarketCap 0.35. The lower cost per transaction seems to make it more transactable than bitcoin, with 0.055 Vol/MarketCap. But unfortunately Litecoin has been losing value to bitcoin, falling from 0.0064 BTC/LTC 12 months ago to 0.0032 BTC/LTC. For short-term trading this is okay, but for HODLing you'd be losing half your value each year compared to bitcoin. As limited bandwidth on bitcoin forces BTC transactions to pay a bigger transaction fee (above the bounty), perhaps Litecoin could gain some advantage for providing low transaction cost. But that would be very speculative because there is a lot of competition to keep transaction costs down. Lightning Network or other layer 2 solutions extending the transactability bitcoin could secure its lead.

Even Dogecoin, a fork of Litecoin, has a chance of edging out Litecoin. It may lock in on one millionth of BTC. If it can track BTC in storing value, it could become the more transactable alternative to bitcoin.

Just a few thought. I'm really quite a novice here. And it is extraordinarily hard to predict how the crypto tech and its public reception will evolve.

 

[jhm]

Who exactly do you think is in congress?




If anybody cared what those folks thought in politics Bernie would've been the nominee. Those folks don't bother to show up to vote though.

Ok, boomer.

 

[Knightshade]

Ok, boomer.

I'm actually gen-x, so as you pointed out, nobody cares what I think, no matter how often I happen to be right

 

[jhm]

I'm actually gen-x, so as you pointed out, nobody cares what I think, no matter how often I happen to be right

I know the feeling. I'm Gen-X too.

 

[jhm]

ION – We Have Liftoff!

V1 of ION is complete!

techcommunity.microsoft.com

This could be a very important development. ION is a distributed identification (DID) network that sits atop bitcoin. Can also sit on any blockchain. This allows for attributes of an identity (person, organization or other entity) to be securely transmitted. Thus, for one immediate example, DeFi lending can move beyond collateralized lending to unsecured lending based on creditworthiness. DID can securely convey attributes about the lender upon which creditworthiness can be determined by the DeFi app doing the lending.

This could be big not just for DeFi, but for all traditional financing as well.

 

[CorneliusXX]

ION – We Have Liftoff!

V1 of ION is complete!

techcommunity.microsoft.com

This could be a very important development. ION is a distributed identification (DID) network that sits atop bitcoin. Can also sit on any blockchain. This allows for attributes of an identity (person, organization or other entity) to be securely transmitted. Thus, for one immediate example, DeFi lending can move beyond collateralized lending to unsecured lending based on creditworthiness. DID can securely convey attributes about the lender upon which creditworthiness can be determined by the DeFi app doing the lending.

This could be big not just for DeFi, but for all traditional financing as well.

You're lucky you didn't get into crypto in 2017 or else you'd own so many sh*tcoins right now.

 

[lascavarian]

Great analysis of Cryptocurrency and societal impact by Christopher Krebs on Bill Mahr last night. Krebs speaks with knowledge and conviction.

Watch Real Time with Bill Maher | Season 22 Now Streaming | Max

Stream the HBO Original series Real Time with Bill Maher on Max. Sign up for hit movies, fresh originals, family favorites, and more starting at $9.99/month.

www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com

 

[jhm]

You're lucky you didn't get into crypto in 2017 or else you'd own so many sh*tcoins right now.

You're probably right. It's not easy sorting out the real gems from shiny turds. Time will sort this out.

2017 ICO craze was largely an experiment in whether you can seize value from bitcoin by merely forking it. The answer is: no, this is very hard to do. It's funny that bitcoin maximalists like to toss about "shitcoin" as an insult. In reality this episode was a very important test to assure markets that value of cryptocurrencies is not easily replicated. There is real scarcity in this space.

A similar thing happened with the dot.com bubble. Was eCommerce so easy that anyone with a dot.com could be a success? Absolutely, not. Building a successful and durable online business is very hard. Amazon and Google would not have become trillion dollar companies, if eCommerce success was easy to replicate. The dot.com bubble may have been necessary (or at least extremely helpful) demonstrate the scarcity of world class online business.

Similarly as Tesla investors, we have been endlessly peppered with a variety of FUD that says, "Anybody can make and EV. Tesla has nothing on Big Auto." A bubble of EV startups will ultimately show that, it is very hard to replicate Tesla. And as legacy automakers attempt and largely fail to bring compelling EVs to the market at scale, it is becoming manifestly clear that making EVs is hard. Tesla level performance in the EV space has enormous scarcity value. That's why Tesla will be a trillion dollar company.

So mucking around in crypto space, you gotta know you'll get your hands dirty with shitcoins, but if you can hold onto a couple of gems that last for decades, it can be quite rewarding. So far, bitcoin appears to be one of the very few gems. Will there be other gems? Yes, I believe there are. Time will tell.

 

[jhm]

Great analysis of Cryptocurrency and societal impact by Christopher Krebs on Bill Mahr last night. Krebs speaks with knowledge and conviction.

Watch Real Time with Bill Maher | Season 22 Now Streaming | Max

Stream the HBO Original series Real Time with Bill Maher on Max. Sign up for hit movies, fresh originals, family favorites, and more starting at $9.99/month.

www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com

It's simply not true that cryptocurrencies are not traceable. Blockchains are public. When an investigator discovers one wallet address used by a criminal, it can immediately see all other addresses (and often IP addresses) that have ever transacted with it along with the details of each transaction. So investigators can literally trace the movement of illicit funds.

The problem here is not with blockchains and cryptocurrency. It is just that security and investigation organizations need step up their ability to analyze blockchain data.

Imagine what the FBI could do if Deutsche Bank were compelled to do all of its transactions on a public blockchain. Would grifters continue to use the bank?

In money laundering, there is a lot of layering to obscure how money is ultimately passed from point A to point B because it goes through some random-looking path C thru Z before arriving at B. If all these nodes A-Z exist on public blockchains, that data can be aggregated and analyzed. For example, transaction flows like A->{?}->B can be identified to establish a money laundering system from A to B. Now suppose that just A-M are on public blockchains and N-Z are in a bunch of different banks. If investigators have practically no visibility of transactions between nodes within certain banks, then money launders will want to pass funds between hidden nodes so that the trail from A to B is never easily discovered by investigators. Why should banks be allowed to grant this privacy to its clients? In general, privacy is a public good that banks work hard to safeguard. We all want privacy. But criminals also exploit privacy to evade detection. This is why banks are required to comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and know your client (KYC) laws. Deutsche Bank, for example, is required to know the identity of nodes X, Y, Z within their bank (KYC), and they must monitor the behavior of all their clients for any suspicious activity (AML). In exchange for that compliance, DB is able to preserve the privacy of client identities, accounts and transaction, unless compelled by law and court orders to surrender data to authorities or other entitled entities. So for example, BD would need to be compelled to provide account history data on say the Trump family before handing it over to the FBI.

In theory, DB has such integrity as an institution that KYC and AML is in perfect compliance always and would be able to detect illicit money flows if it were happening. How credible is all this? In recent years banks have had to pay some $330B in fines for AML+KYC violations.

But what if a truly honest and compliant bank had nodes N-P which were used in illicit flows from A to B out in cryptospace (or some other banks), would Honest Bank be able to detect and rightly inform authorities about this segment of the money laundering scheme? Depending on the sophistication of the criminal network, the bank could honestly not be able to see the connection. The problem first is that they don't have visibility into nodes Q-Z nor are they compelled to investigate nodes A-M in public blockchains. We can see now a few ways that the AML system could be improved by cryptocurrencies and blockchains. First, banks can custody crypto and know the wallet addresses of their clients (enhanced KYC). Second, AML can be enhances to compel banks to monitor public blockchain transaction of their clients. These would give Honest Bank visibility into nodes A-M and N-P, which would increase the chances of detecting layered flows from A to B. But bank privacy still obscures nodes Q-Z. So a third AML enhancement would be to require all banks to transact only on public blockchains.

I'm not advocating any of these policy enhancements. They each have potential to erode privacy and to overburden banks with costly regulation. So there are massive political tradeoffs between privacy, security, and economy to be weighed. Would we want to live in a world where the only legitimate transactions are conducted on public blockchains? That might eliminate money laundering and terrorist financing, but I'm not sure I'm ready for public blockchain only world.

 

[lascavarian]

It's simply not true that cryptocurrencies are not traceable. Blockchains are public.

It is a shame that Krebs did not say that.

When an investigator discovers one wallet address used by a criminal, it can immediately see all other addresses (and often IP addresses) that have ever transacted with it along with the details of each transaction. So investigators can literally trace the movement of illicit funds.

The problem here is not with blockchains and cryptocurrency. It is just that security and investigation organizations need step up their ability to analyze blockchain data.

So criminals have made a tragic mistake in being so welcoming to cryptocurrencies it seems. What dull wits they must be. I am not trying to be insulting but it is clear that cryptocurrencies have an enormous problem with crime. There are complex answers conjectured but the proposed solution is itself often yet another problem.

Imagine what the FBI could do if Deutsche Bank were compelled to do all of its transactions on a public blockchain. Would grifters continue to use the bank?

Here the answer seems to be the complete abandoning of any pretense to privacy as well as a proposal to force changes on the banking system in order to mitigate fundamental flaws in cryptocurrencies. More overhead, more state-mandated banking controls and yet more accommodations to try to make cryptocurrency complexity, slowness and expense acceptable.

The point that Krebs makes is that criminal elements have found cryptocurrencies useful due to their anonymous electronic transaction abilities combined with exploits within the very computer systems that blockchains rest upon. I don't think this is disputable yet you have spent time and effort to elaborate a detailed example of blockchain auditing. The idea of an "honest and compliant bank" remains merely an idea. Banks are neither as your reference to fines correctly confirms. I respect your work but the problems remain numerous. Fraudulent credentials, fraudulent wallets, cross border cyber crime etc etc.

Bitcoin Has Lost Steam. But Criminals Still Love It. (Published 2020)

The police hoped that taking down online black markets would chase away criminals. But the amount of Bitcoin spent on illegal purposes has reached a new high.

www.nytimes.com

So is there a path forward? I expect there is but it will be a fresh lightweight hybrid tax/currency option started with state backing of some kind.

 

[jhm]

It is a shame that Krebs did not say that.



So criminals have made a tragic mistake in being so welcoming to cryptocurrencies it seems. What dull wits they must be. I am not trying to be insulting but it is clear that cryptocurrencies have an enormous problem with crime. There are complex answers conjectured but the proposed solution is itself often yet another problem.


Here the answer seems to be the complete abandoning of any pretense to privacy as well as a proposal to force changes on the banking system in order to mitigate fundamental flaws in cryptocurrencies. More overhead, more state-mandated banking controls and yet more accommodations to try to make cryptocurrency complexity, slowness and expense acceptable.

The point that Krebs makes is that criminal elements have found cryptocurrencies useful due to their anonymous electronic transaction abilities combined with exploits within the very computer systems that blockchains rest upon. I don't think this is disputable yet you have spent time and effort to elaborate a detailed example of blockchain auditing. The idea of an "honest and compliant bank" remains merely an idea. Banks are neither as your reference to fines correctly confirms. I respect your work but the problems remain numerous. Fraudulent credentials, fraudulent wallets, cross border cyber crime etc etc.

Bitcoin Has Lost Steam. But Criminals Still Love It. (Published 2020)

The police hoped that taking down online black markets would chase away criminals. But the amount of Bitcoin spent on illegal purposes has reached a new high.

www.nytimes.com

So is there a path forward? I expect there is but it will be a fresh lightweight hybrid tax/currency option started with state backing of some kind.

Thanks for the link. These paragraphs illustrate my point about traceability.

The ledger of all Bitcoin transactions, known as the blockchain, publicly records every transaction. Names are not assigned to Bitcoin addresses, but firms like Chainalysis have tracked criminals by tracing transactions through the blockchain to places that know the identity of their users, like Bitcoin exchanges.

Some new dark net markets have pushed customers to use alternative cryptocurrencies that leave less of a trail. But criminals seem to be undeterred by Bitcoin’s drawbacks. The spread of fentanyl, which is blamed for the opioid crisis in the United States, was made possible, law enforcement has said, by Chinese labs selling the drug online for Bitcoin.

A lot of criminal are dumb. So law enforcement can pick them off when they use crypto they got from a KYC compliant exchange and used with a know illicit address. Flipping to another crypto is just as dumb if you're using your wallet in a KYC compliant exchange.

Another policy took governments can explore is putting known illicit addresses on the financial crimes sanctions list and making it a crime to exchange crypto with a sanctioned addresses. This would make it easier for prosecutors to go after this illicit trade, and would act a deterrent. There are ways that app builders can add a layer to transaction services that would check whether any of the addresses in a transaction are on the sanctions list. Financial institutions already must check any transaction against a sanctions list that are designated by country, business or individual. So adding wallet addresses to the sanctions list is a natural extension of existing law and internal controls. Not only would this block the actions of individuals seeking out illicit goods, but it would interfere with the ability to the sanctioned crime organizations to conduct legitimate business (for example, buying office supplies from a legit store) or laundering money (so as to have legit funds to buy office supplies from a legit store. It might even be possible to sanction miners and nodes for adding transactions of sanctioned addresses to a blockchain. If such laws could be successfully enforced it would in essence freeze sanctioned wallets, not unlike how governments can compel banks to freeze assets in certain situations.

The point with this is that there are ways to fight crime even online crimes. Cypto is not so fantastic that law enforcement will be forever outsmarted. That said, there is monetary system in the world that is immune from criminal activity. Currently there are over $100B in crypto transactions every day, about $1T per quarter year. The idea that some 0.06% of this $1T volume may be criminal should not surprise us. Nor should the criminal actions of a few lead us to deprive the many of lawful use. Otherwise, by extension of principle, we would need to shut down the whole internet, because there are criminal who use the internet to commit crimes. We would have had to shut down cell phone and beepers before the internet because some criminals have have used beepers to help them commit crimes. How about cars and public roads? You get the point.

With each new technology, criminals will figure out some way to exploit it, law enforcement will have to fight crime committed with that technology, and policy makers may need to enact new laws and policies to address particular abuses. In the early stages, it can look like the criminal are one step ahead of law enforcement and that there must be something wrong with the new technology. But as societies adjust to new technologies, we find usually find that the good outweighs the bad and find ways to put guardrails around abuse. I happen to believe that crypto-assets are a huge net good for humanity. I also believe that governments are rarely fully effective in banning new technologies, and blockchain tech is designed to be especially resistant to censorship. Governments cannot put this genie back in the bottle, and forcing the whole enterprise underground would only create much bigger organized crime problems while depriving the public of the many legitimate goods this tech has to offer. The best approach, I believe, will be to apply and where necessary extend current financial crimes laws to bring crypto-assets into scope of the regulation of the financial industry. The integrated regulatory framework will actually make it easier for businesses, banks and other institutions to benefit from crypto-assets. Indeed, anyone hodling bitcoin hoping corporations will use it as a treasury asset or in operational cash flows should welcome regulatory inclusion, and thoughtful advocates do welcome fair regulation.

 

[ZeApelido]

I just checked my altcoins I purchased 4 years ago. Cardano doing well and Enjin coin blew up seemingly from NFT hype?

ENJ is now over half of my altcoin's collective value.

 

[lascavarian]

But as societies adjust to new technologies, we find usually find that the good outweighs the bad and find ways to put guardrails around abuse.

Technologies tend to be an amplifier.... for either good or bad. Unfortunately, in the case of the internet, the fundamental tech is designed to be immune to guardrails. So we get the chaos, for better or worse, that we have today.

I can't see anything about bitcoin in particular that is helpful in delivering a more equitable future. Cryptocurrencies in general may be able to help but not bitcoin. Bitcoin, IMO, was specifically designed to be immune to guardrails and amplify the separation of the world into an increasingly small group of owners and the poor where the owners use the design of the blockchain to enshrine their eternal wealth/privilege and anonymity.

It could be otherwise but it is not. Satoshi's design and Satoshi's actions are cold evidence. Bring out Satoshi into the light of day as a very tiny first step. Without vastly more transparency there is zero hope for Bitcoin IMO. It is an informative example of how to design a tool to drive the inevitable concentration of wealth and power into an anonymous few technocrats beholden to no one.

 

[jhm]

Currently, everything in my stock portfolio is down, except MicroStrategy. TSLA down 2.2%, while MSTR is up 5.0%. I'm quite sure MSTR is only up because of its 91,326 BTC holding as the price of bitcoin has been going up over the weekend, now about $58k/BTC.

While USD is being pulled out of the stock market, MSTR is able to hold onto BTC as a lifeline, offering diversification to a stock portfolio. Increasingly I am thinking that Tesla does not hold nearly enough coin to stem the flow of USD out of the stock market generally. Selling cars in coin will help, but it will take time to obtain meaningful accumulation. I'm very eager to get an update from Tesla on current BTC holding.

I know that what little coin Tesla holds has been enough to chase away some long-time Tesla investors. It could very well cost Tesla a few ESG points as well. But whatever that cost in shareholder loyalty, I think it is pretty much baked into the the share price already. Converting another $1B in cash to BTC is not going to chase way investors that haven't already left over this issue. So then the question remains, does Tesla hold enough BTC and promises to direct enough FCF in to coin to strongly attract investors seeking exposure to crypto?

Certainly MSTR has more than enough coin to trade on the value of BTC. Fairly priced I think MSTR is work about $5B for the coin plus $1B for the company. So this is really overkill. I think if MSTR only held $1B in coin plus $1B for the company, the stock would stem the flow of cash out of the stock market. But even this is a pretty high ratio of coin to market cap. Tesla has about $2.64B in coin on a market cap of $574B, thus a coin to cap ratio of 0.46%. By comparison, MSTR is as 106.12% coin to cap ratio. So MSTR looks like overkill, while Tesla has immaterial exposure to bitcoin.

Tesla seems to have just enough exposure to scare away bitcoin resistant investors, but not enough draw in coin-seeking investment when the dollar slips against coin. But how quickly should Tesla accumulate coin? Sustainably Tesla can convert FCF into coin holding. This would mean that all cash from operations gets reinvested in CapEx or treasury coin. If Tesla can get better ROI on investing in itself than investing in bitcoin, it should increase CapEx and decrease incremental investment in coin. Working capital cash can be obtained by borrowing against coin as collateral. So a big enough hoard of coin is sufficient to guard against illiquidity. Over the next year, I think that Tesla could safely convert about $1.5B cash to coin each quarter. Our Master of Coin should give us guidance on the ongoing bitcoin strategy.

 

[Rarity]

I'm hoping that the next earnings call will contain some more detail on the justification for bitcoin holdings and what the company intends to do in this area.

Also, it seems entirely possible that Tesla will have purchased another chunk of bitcoin before the Q1 earnings report.

 

[jhm]

For any Tesla shareholder wondering if bitcoin might be useful diversification, consider this.

In Jan 25, 2021, TSLA hit its last ATH of $900.40. Since then it has tumbled 32% down to 611.29.
Meanwhile, on Jan 25, BTC closed at $32,366.39. It reached its last ATH, on Mach 13 at $61,683.86. It currently is at
$57,532.25, which is just 6.7 below the ATH.

Pretty much anytime around or after Tesla's ATH, an investor who had sold some Tesla to buy some BTC would most likely have come out ahead on the trade. I don't believe that this decline in Tesla is really because of the company. I remain quite impressed on performance. Rather we are in a bear market. Dollars are being sucked out of the stock market or rotated into value stocks. So it is extraordinarily hard for any solid growth stock to hold onto its valuation. When this market bottoms out, we'll want to load back into Tesla. But, baby it's cold right now. I'm wishing I had heeded Michael Saylor a little sooner.

No doubt this is just one anecdote. Things will always work out differently. But here's the thing that worries me. Tesla investors and other growth investors are becoming more aware of the potential with bitcoin and other crypto. And growth investors as a class have a much higher tolerance for highly volatile investments like bitcoin and Tesla. So what happens when growth investors tune into the idea of jumping into coin whenever growth stocks go into a correction or bear market? While institutional investor may be rotating into value stocks, growth investors could be rotating into bitcoin. If that is the flow of money, then it becomes even more important for growth investors to diversify into coin. Additionally, if this becomes the play, it becomes helpful with growth stocks also hold coin in their treasuries. It would preserve capital for the company to hold bitcoin against the risk that shareholders take a flight to bitcoin for safety. Indeed Tesla secured an extra $1B in capital just by buying BTC when it did. This has derisked the potential need to issues shares just when share price was falling.

 

[jhm]

I just checked my altcoins I purchased 4 years ago. Cardano doing well and Enjin coin blew up seemingly from NFT hype?

ENJ is now over half of my altcoin's collective value.

We need to have discussion here about NFTs. Personally, I'm not getting into NFT art or collectibles. That's just not my interest area, but I think for people who do like to collect things, maybe they find NFTs more compelling. More broadly, collectibles, be that art, antiques, playing cards, wine or whatever, is traditional way to store value, a hedonic store of value. Part of the NFT explosion may be due to the novelty of NFTs as a new way to collect and secure value. But also it makes sense that within the crypto world, people want to diversify the value that they are storing. That is, even among crypto enthusiasts, bitcoin alone is not a satisfying store of value. You can all buy PAXG, a coin the at is backed by ownership of stored gold. Maybe your crypto world is a little more secure if some of it is backed by gold, art or basketball clips and not just the "technically, thermodynamically superior asset," otherwise known as bitcoin.

The NFT technology is interesting in its own right too. For example, an artist tokenizing a work can serial number and limit the number of NFT copies (say 1 of 100) and they can set a resale royalty, say 10%. Artist have issues limited editions of works for quite a long time. Nothing new there. But this resale royalty is novel in its simplicity. Basically, every the NFT gets sold from one person to another, 10% of the selling prices is transmitted to the artist's wallet and 90% to the seller of the NFT. If the artist's works become quite collectible over time, they can enjoy a long lived income stream. (I'm not sure what happens with the artist's estate after death.)

One area where I would expect this resale royalty stream to be a novel solution is overcome the problem of scalping. Suppose you're a performing artists. You sell NFT tickets to your show. To get into the show, the bearer of the ticket must present the NFT in their wallet. This firstly avoids counterfeit tickets. It also gives your fan a cool collectible. But fundamentally you don't worry about scalpers elbowing your fans out of tickets just to price them up for your fans. You make make an extra 10% every time a scalper successfully sells the tickets. Moreover, if something truly memorable happens at the show (like you eat a bat on stage), the tickets still have collectible enormous collectible value. They can be resold after the show. This is good for you and your fan, as your fan can recoup some of the cost of the original tickets in the after market (if they can be persuades to part with it). Additionally, the NFT ticket can be used to unlock special surprises. For example, your show tickets could be used to unlock a pre-released new single before it becomes available to the public. Fans love these sorts of things, so an NFT show ticket can pack a lot of value for the fan and lock in a valuable revenue stream for you the performing artist.

Other experiences like a transportation ticket or hotel reservation can also become enhanced with NFT tech. Of course, all sorts of ticketing already has digital forms. But most tickets are not exchangeable and may not even be refundable. This reduces the value of the ticket for ticket holder. If I can resale an event ticket that I no longer need, then I am at lower risk to buy it in the first place.

The NFT tech makes it possible for the original issuer to observe and even be a party to any downstream exchanges with other parties. I'm sure we'll see all sorts of clever applications for this, not just collectibles.

 

[willow_hiller]

Just mulling over the question of the timing of Tesla's BTC purchase... I think this may actually have something to do with the Biden administration's infrastructure plan. After the $1.9 trillion stimulus package, the Biden admin is now planning an additional $3-$4 trillion on national infrastructure to be detailed this week. Biden to lay out first piece of sweeping infrastructure and jobs package Wednesday

Granted, I believe our country sorely needs these investments, especially the ones focused on renewable infrastructure and electric vehicles; but most people would assume these policies will have an inflationary effect. And if Tesla has been in talks with the current administration for a while, Elon would have had advanced notice of this potential for inflation; and could be using BTC as an anti-inflationary hedge for the company.

 

[lascavarian]

For those of you fearing missing out, there are BITCOIN available on the DOJ webpage because of you know criminals....

Personal Property Management System

gsaauctions.gov